Calcutta HC quashes case against child for rash driving beacon-fitted car

The Calcutta High Court has quashed all proceedings against a minor accused of rash driving a beacon-fitted car and related traffic violations, saying the Juvenile Justice Board JJB failed to finish the statutory inquiry within the deadline set by law.

The Calcutta High Court has quashed all proceedings against a minor accused of rash driving a beacon-fitted car and related traffic violations, saying the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) failed to finish the statutory inquiry within the deadline set by law. The incident occurred in the city's Park Street area on November 26, 2023, when the boy allegedly drove a car with a blue beacon and a ''Judge'' board fitted on the dashboard, violating a one-way rule. As the police stopped the vehicle, the juvenile admitted he didn't have a driving licence and said the car belonged to his grandfather, a retired judge. Police slapped charges against him, which included rash driving, false impersonation and under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. An inquiry before the JJB was undertaken, and the minor first appeared before the board in November 2023. Quashing the case on Tuesday, Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee noted that the Juvenile Justice Act is welfare-oriented, and strict timelines are meant to protect children from prolonged legal trauma. But the inquiry before the JJB was not completed within the statutory period - even after an extension that lacked valid reasons. ''Under the provisions of section 14(2), the inquiry shall have to be completed within a period of four months from the date of first production of juvenile before the Board, unless the period is extended for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, after recording reasons in writing for such extension,'' the judgment read. In this case, the delinquent juvenile appeared before the Board on November 28, 2023, and as per provision of the JJ Act, the inquiry should have been completed by March 27, 2024. The time frame as stipulated under the JJ Act can be extended for another two months, but that can be done only by recording the reason in writing, the judge said. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the reason for extending the time till February 2, 2024, was not mentioned, and thus, ''it is not a valid extension,'' the order said. Because this time frame was missed, the proceedings had to be quashed as per law, the order said. The court, however, cautioned against misusing juvenile protections to evade punishment for serious crimes.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)